Perspective is everything and facts are important in the gun debate. Unfortunately, after tragedy strikes, facts are cast aside in favor of emotionally-based pleas that 'We Must Do Something!'

The graphs below are provided with little to no commentary as it is unnecessary.

Guns have only two enemies; Rust and Liberals. Liberal Tears Gun Oil protects against both. We have bottled Liberal Tears to create a CLP that gives you guaranteed 2nd Amendment protection. New Liberal Tears Gun Oil is NOW BACON SCENTED

1. There are more guns than ever in the United States and there are now more guns than people.

2. Americans can more freely carry guns on them now than ever before.

3. But with this increase in guns, accidental fatalities from firearms has continued to decrease...

4. Additionally, homicides from firearms has also decreased...

5. Suicides aren't on the rise, either. Rates among men and women have been statistically similar going back multiple generations.

6. As suicides go, "Suicide by gun" has actually decreased as well.

7. After each tragedy, our politicians politick, our late night comedians weep, and we leap to social media to re-hack all of our side's talking points. But these tragedies don't actually change anyone's mind.

Thomas Sowell is one of a handful of people whose prose I genuinely envy.

He's also brilliant, of course.

Milton Friedman, whom I disagree with on some things, was known for being an effective debater, but I think Sowell has even him beat: anti-capitalist platitudes don't stand a chance against the Sowell meat grinder.

From what I've seen of it, the new book reminds me of Sowell's criminally neglected work Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, which I've been recommending for as long as I can remember (my Amazon review from 2001 is still up).

One by one, the standard platitudes about discrimination and poverty fall before Sowell's relentless statistical assault. Discrimination causes poverty? How about the Chinese minority in Southeast Asia? Discrimination against the Chinese minority is actually written into the Malaysian constitution. And yet the Chinese minority still dominate the economy.

Likewise, Japanese-Americans were discriminated against so badly that 120,000 of them were forcibly relocated during World War II. Yet by 1959 they had equaled whites in income, and by 1969 were earning one-third more.

Politics is the only way for a minority group to advance? To the contrary: the general pattern in the United States has been for a group to become wealthy first and only then to enter politics (if at all). The Irish, on the other hand, who placed such emphasis on political action, lagged behind other ethnic groups.

The book is filled with information like this. Page by relentless page, Sowell relentlessly undermines the idea that outcome differences must be of sinister origin.

If Polish-Americans are 25 years older, on average, than Puerto Ricans, is that not going to be reflected in greater work experience, higher net worth, etc.? Yet nobody even bothers to consider age differences.

If half of Mexican-American women are married by age 18, but only 10 percent of Japanese-American women are, won't their life trajectories be radically different -- even if they were identical in all other traits?

By the end of Sowell's book, any reasonable person has to understand how cartoonish and silly it is to expect identical outcomes from different groups across a wide range of human experiences.

Of course, today the very existence of an intergroup disparity is made the subject of hysterical denunciations by campus demonstrators who aren't exactly known for appreciating subtlety.

All the more reason to cheer the truly great Thomas Sowell, and the unexpected gift of his new book.

The video below is making the rounds on social media and claims that...

"Russian meddling is the biggest attack on our democracy since 9-11. Here's how it works and what we can do about it."

The problem with over-simplified videos like this is that they are able to embed a lot of spin when they apply broad-stroke simplification to a complex issue. The listener doesn't have the time to evaluate each simplified declaration as true or false before moving on to the next talking point. This video is no different.

If you’ve ever gotten into a heated argument in the comments section of Facebook, chances are you’ve come across a paid Russian troll.

Really? Half my Facebook friends are Russian trolls since we get in heated arguments all the time?

In reality, Facebook has been extremely cooperative in the handing over of data to prosecute the ‘Russian trolls’. If Russian trolls were the problem, do not doubt that Facebook would have provided extensive, accurate data that would support this claim. The media would kill for confirmation of that narrative, yet no supporting data has surfaced.
​
Instead, the larger picture could never be more clear.
​

​The goalposts surrounding the Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Have Moved Again

Looking at the 2016 election, it's interesting to note that their main goal wasn't exactly to help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Russia's bigger goal has always been to create chaos and distrust within American society.​

It also, doesn't stop them from lathering their base with hopes of collusion which could still occur.
​

​Why hasn't the collusion message dissipated?

Why isn't this widely reported as a scarlet letter of failure on mainstream media outlets that pushed the narrative so hard for so long? First off, it's a complex story and can't be discussed perfectly in 3 minute soundbites that steer cable TV news segments.

While there are allegations that it was actually the Democrats who colluded with the Russians, there is no concise and perfectly packaged smoking gun that proves so. Hillary didn't directly write a check to the Russians for dirt on Trump.
​
Instead:

The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign hired a company called Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump.

Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele who used Russian sources developed from his years as a spy to produce the Anti-Trump dossier.

The dossier was 35 pages of sensational allegations against Trump — including that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes in a bed once used by Barack Obama; that he was offered bribes of more than a billion dollars by the Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft to end U.S. trade sanctions on Russia if he won the presidency; and that Trump officials secretly met with Russian officials to collude on "hacking" the Democrats during the 2016 election. In the intelligence world we say "Intelligence without proof is merely gossip".

The fake dossier was used by FBI as legitimate to spy on Trump campaign, specifically a FISA warrant was issued against Trump adviser Carter Page, though at this point, he had already left the Trump campaign.

​Without a direct smoking gun, the only outlets that will push the narrative of direct Democratic collusion with the Russians turns out to be Fox News and Alex Jones.
​

The real crime isn't discussed by any Media outlets, though.

A dossier which was paid for by one political party was being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent*. This precedent is dangerous especially as we see many within the FBI organization were acting in a blatantly partisan manner while on the taxpayer's dime.

If I was Carter Page, I'd be looking into a civil suit against the government's wrongful intrusion into my 4th Amendment Rights by politically motivated federal law enforcement officials within the FBI.

Who has influenced the public more? The Russians or the Media pushing a fake narrative?

I have to re-stress this point, there's not yet any evidence to prove any 'collusion' narrative. Indeed, after more than 18 months, the Comey-Mueller FBI investigations of alleged Trump collusion with Russia have come up bone dry. I stand by my previous remarks:

If evidence exists of collusion between Russia and Trump to rig or hack the election, let's get the proof out there and hang him for it.

Instead, the readily apparent media goal is to pack television shows, social media timelines and article titles with half-truth reporting in order to muddy the picture. If you don't really take the time to look into the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative, you'll likely just assume it true based on the volume of reporting thrown in your face daily.

What's increasingly apparent is that the Robert Mueller investigation, which was kickstarted in 2016 by the Trump Dossier, has turned into a continuation of the Democrats' failed 2016 political campaign against Trump, with vague insinuations of misconduct or outright criminality but never any proof.

Now that the goalposts have shifted, I urge you to take every opportunity to point out that we were lied to and the media should have zero credibility going forward. How do we go back and tell every person who read the previous list of articles, or quickly scrolled past them in their social media timeline that they were patently false and created with an agenda in mind? We can't. Those people went on living their lives unable to hold an adult conversation on the topic because they've been effectively influenced. We're never able to right the wrong that has taken place.
​

This is the real crime. Hundreds of millions of Americans read headlines or quickly browsed articles and walked away from that interaction knowing that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

You speak to them around the water fountain and they can't explain why, they've seen no evidence, but it must be true. They are naive to believe the media is pure in it's intentions. They are ignorant to the fact that the media could be complicit in pushing a narrative.

Ever since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, social media has been even more toxic than usual.

The gun-control side has in general been content to attribute vile motives to their opponents, and to contend that people arguing for gun rights prefer guns over their own children.

Their reaction has made the debate over the 73 genders seem downright civil.

Obviously, no progress can be made in our understanding when one side is so hysterical. Their side seems incapable even of conceiving of a rational argument we might make.

This is standard fare for progressives, in my experience. We know their positions inside and out, but they seem genuinely baffled by and altogether ignorant of what libertarians and conservatives believe. (In fact, Jonathan Haidt ran studies on this very question, and found progressives consistently do a much worse job explaining their opponents' views than vice versa.)

It is especially rich that progressives should posture and preen as though they hold the moral high ground, when in fact they consistently reject all practical responses to school shootings, including improvements in school security, in favor of pie-in-the-sky political solutions that have zero chance of passage, much less implementation.

Best way to respond? With the stuff you'll learn in my brand new, free eBook Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong About Guns.

Get it here (and please do me a favor by sharing the link with friends and on social media):

Following the Las Vegas shooting in the above titled article from The Hill in November 2017, the question arose "What would the political landscape look like if serious gun control measures were put into law?

The authors preface a list of "common sense gun controls" by saying "In the spirit of these proposals, here are some ideas for tough federal gun laws — most of which should have been enacted years ago."
​

The list includes:

Domestic Violence abusers, even if just a misdemeanor, get a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession.

Government licensing for anyone intending to "manufacture, import, or sell firearms" whether as a business or for profit.

Manufacturers, importers, and dealers are required to maintain meticulous records which are inspect-able by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) at any time.

All citizens should be required to get government approval before purchasing a gun whether at a gun store or gun show.

Gun customer should answer dozens of questions, including ones about their race. Additionally, FBI background check should be conducted.

Buy two or more guns in a week? You should go on a watch list.

All guns should have a serial number.

Felons should be forever excluded from being able to buy guns, even if it was a 1971 marijuana possession.

Ever committed to a mental institution? Lifetime ban to purchase a firearm.

Medical marijuana patient? Even in a state where it's legal? Lifetime ban.

Automatic rifles outlawed with exception of very few artifacts and relics.

Violation of any of these laws should be punishable by 10 years in prison.

It's a pretty good list. When posed to people who have never purchased a gun before, it almost seems, dare I say, "Common Sense"?

The problem is what the article most articulately points out. These laws are already on the books and have been for a long time.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.
​

For decades researchers have found that many Americans do not understand how strict gun control laws already are. Some elected officials and journalists are similarly misinformed. Widespread ignorance about existing law makes things easier for anti-gun lobbyists who always insist that every notorious crime proves that we need more gun control laws.

Perhaps we should attempt to educate ourselves about guns before we attempt to legislate them. If not, the results can be quite hilarious:
​

When it comes to U.S. foreign policy challenges, four countries really stand above the rest: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. While we stumble from one dysfunctional episode to the next here at home and create leadership vacuums by retreating further from the global stage, those countries are consolidating their power--and their challenges to American interests.
​

(1) Iran is now more powerful than it has been since it was known as Persia. No longer balanced by Iraq, Iran is able to project influence all the way to--and through--the Levant. Iranian influence pervades the Iraqi government and society and is paramount in Syria and Lebanon. They're engaged in a successful proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, pose a severe threat to Israel via Hezbollah, and are now even looking east to a place where American troops are directly involved: Yes, Iran now appears to be providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
​

(2) North Korea is closer than ever--perhaps mere months away--to having a nuclear warhead that is small enough to fit onto the tip of a ballistic missile and to having the delivery system to carry that warhead all the way to the U.S. This is the first time that a country has both directly threatened to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. and been so close to having the capability to do so. Though not certain, it is not unreasonable to think that North Korea could complete its nuclear deterrent before 2019.
​

(3) Emboldened by having successfully interfered in our 2016 elections (and having not been punished for doing so) and preparing to do so again in this year's elections, Russia is rapidly consolidating a new sphere of influence that extends into the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe in ways not seen since the days of the Soviet Union. Like Iran (and Pakistan), Russia also appears to now be providing assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its military involvement in Ukraine is no closer to a resolution than it was years ago. Now Russian President Vladimir Putin appears set to be overwhelmingly reelected in an election that the Kremlin would never allow him to lose in the first place. He is, in effect, a lifetime autocrat; carefully managed elections are allowed in order to maintain a veneer of "democracy." Make no mistake though: should a majority of Russian voters ever desire to remove Putin through the ballot box, they would not be allowed to do so.
​

(4) The greatest strategic challenge of all comes from China, however. They pose the greatest threat to our allies, to our economy (jobs, etc.), to global norms, and so on, and they are one of the few remaining expansionist major powers. While we've had our heads turned, Xi Jinping has gone from merely the next Chinese President to the first Chinese dictator in decades. Like Putin, he is an autocrat. Unlike Putin, he is increasingly unconcerned with maintaining any veneer of democratic processes. China's rubber-stamp National People's Congress has formalized Xi's status as a lifetime ruler, and all indications are that one of Xi's top priorities will be to use his and China's growing power to ratchet up challenges to U.S. interests. These aren't abstract interests either: they directly affect American "Main Streets'" jobs and security. The days when China spoke often of its "peaceful" rise appear to be behind us.
​

These are some of the toughest problems we face, but they are far from the only problems we face. The global commons is incredibly complex and increasingly hostile and volatile. This is not the time to disengage from allies and/or to fall into total dysfunction at home.

We should get our house in order at home so that we can present a strong, united front. Then we should robustly re-engage with our allies abroad. Shrinking in the face of growing challenges isn't strong leadership. It isn't, in fact, leadership at all. The days when the U.S. could simply retreat into itself and prosper as before are over. We no longer have the preponderance of power that we once did and, like everyone else, are partially dependent on other countries in order to maintain our security and our standard of living.
​
It's time for us to rise to the challenge.

Editor's Note: I'm a Liberty Lover that believes we shouldn't be actively countering foreign powers that aren't currently undermining our national security or liberty. What are your thoughts on the geopolitical mandate that requires the United States to continually slay dragons to ensure we stay on top?